Day: January 17, 2016

Let one read some classical and accepted Mutun of ‘Aqidah [of the Ahl al-Sunnah] and see for oneself whether anything regarding graves is mentioned in it.
People who think that Tawhid and Shirk is all about graves; have in reality not understood what true Tawhid or Shirk is.

It certainly isn’t all about graves, but historically and even today, it’s been a prominent manifestation of Shirk.

—

This statement is simply wrong no matter how one looks at it and goes quite clearly against the classical understanding. That was also the reason why I said that one should refer to classical ‘Aqidah texts to see for oneself whether one finds anything about graves in it. Worship is connected to ones beliefs and intention and is not just an outward action.
The reality of this issue is that the actions concerning graves are matters of Fiqh and not ‘Aqidah: Some of these actions are forbidden, some are disliked and some are even allowed (and I think you know how dangerous it is to call something that is allowed in our religion as “Shirk” and “Kufr”).
Some examples:– Sujud (prostration) for humans in order to greet them and as a sign of showing respect is haram in our Shari’ah (while it was allowed in the law of earlier Prophets) and not Shirk or Kufr.

If one however makes Sujud for idols, the sun or the moon it would become disbelief. (As for prostration for anything other than Allah ta’ala with the intention of worshipping it, then this is obviously Shirk akbar in every situation.) You can read the statements of the scholars who mentioned this Tafsil:

نقد الرؤية الوهابية للتوحيد وقسميه – #52– Tawaf ( circumambulating) of something other than the Ka’bah (like graves) is not allowed, but also not Shirk akbar. Here are scholarly statements: نقد الرؤية الوهابية للتوحيد وقسميه – #53– Touching and kissing graves is disliked. Some scholars also mentioned that it is not disliked if it’s for the sake of Tabarruk.– Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah with the understanding of the Ahl al-Sunnah is allowed and not Shirk akbar.

If Tashaffu’ is done with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – during the Ziyarah it’s even recommended according to the Jumhur of the scholars of the 4 Madhahib (while it’s “Shirk akbar” and a reason to fight the whole Arabian peninsula and mass-slaughter people according to the original Najdi movement).

But unfortunately “Salafis” do not care about the statements of classical scholars. They only care about what Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) – a highly controversial scholar – said and like it to follow hisweird and abnormal views (which in some cases no one from the people of Islam before him has ever said!) and treat his statements likerevelation.

It should be however noted that Ibn Taymiyyah was not extreme in Takfir and that there is a Tafsil in his statements regarding the above mentioned issues.

But since “Salafis” are very shallow they are simply not able to understand him. So they follow him in his wrong statements only, but when he says something correct they start to make Taqlid of thatbloodthirsty Khariji Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab Najdi (d. 1206 AH) andthose ignorant “Salafi” Mashayikh instead.* Shaykh Sulayman bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1208/1210 AH) has shown quite well in one of his letters (which was later printed as a book under the name al-Sawa’iq al-Ilahiyyah) that his brother was an ignorant person and that he had misunderstood Ibn Taymiyyah. I mean this person (i.e. IAW) was not even able to quoteal-Iqna’ (a known Hanbali Fiqh book, which was easily available in Najd) properly nor did he understand what the statement of the Hanabilah “to take mediators (Wasa`it) between oneself and Allah” meant, so what can one say after that!?

Anyways, I don’t want to get more into details, because these issues have already been discussed.
Whoever wants to understand the religion properly and to follow the truth then let him refer to the classical scholars (and those who are upon their way today) and NOT to people who have come up with new ideas after more than thousand years after the Hijrah.

His following three points in my estimation are good and strong points:

– He says that the Wahhabiyyah are basically accusing the Prophet (عليه افضل الصلاة و السلام) of having failed to deliver the message and warn us about something called ‘Shirk’ that might occur at the graves, this is because the Prophet never even indicated that Shirk practices will be done at the graves (Quboor).

If Shirk of worshiping was such a big issue that no one before Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab new la ila il Allah in the land of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then surely one can say there is not a single Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) clearly stated people will worship graves, do not worship graves. Leaving no guidance regards to such important issue. If there ever was chance of Ummah as whole or part worshiping graves Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have told so.

– He says that all the hadith about graves are nothing but a clarification of how to seperate between two places i.e. the Masjid and the graveyard i.e. the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) just instructed the Ummah not to worship at graves. – He says putting all the narrations about the graves togethers shows that all they imply is that one has to stay away from graves as a place of worship. Narrations where one is ordered not to sit on a grave etc. are all proving that and this is a better interpretation (nevertheless, he argues that no matter what is going on at graves, it is still not Shirk!!!).

Very good and valid point, the Ahadith which the Khawarij interpret to mean, Muslims will worship graves, only, come togather to establish that Muslims should not make graves in Masajid which the Jews and Christians use to do. Evidence of which is walk into any major Christian Church and see graves in it. I went to a school trip and I was walking on their graves inside the church. I enquired was told these are graves of bla bla … People literally were walking … the graves were part of floor, to differentiate different stone was used with a silver panel … thats all.

Majority of the Shirk mentioned in the Quran is to do with the graves, i.e. glorification of righteous people leading to idol worshiping.
The Prophet SAW explicitly mentioned graves and forbade us from taking them as Masajid, citing the Yahud and Nasara as an example. The Quran is crammed full of it.
The classical theological literature is only representative of theological polemics relevant to the age of the author. None of these classical works will have much on Shirk in Allah’s Hukm, secularism, etc, or creation of Adam. Moreover, the classical Ash’ari heritage requires you to condition your mind in Greek philosophy before one even comes to conclusion that there is a God.Ibn Khuzayma makes a remark in his Kitab al-Tawheed, merely in passing, that Kalimatullah is uncreated because the Prophet SAW sought refuge in them, and seeking refuge from creation is not from the Deen of Muslims. Lo and behold, seeking refuge in the Prophet is no longer Shirk according to you guys (do correct me if I am wrong).

Majority of the Shirk mentioned in the Quran is to do with the graves, i.e. glorification of righteous people leading to idol worshiping.
The Prophet SAW explicitly mentioned graves and forbade us from taking them as Masajid, citing the Yahud and Nasara as an example. The Quran is crammed full of it.
The classical theological literature is only representative of theological polemics relevant to the age of the author. None of these classical works will have much on Shirk in Allah’s Hukm, secularism, etc, or creation of Adam. Moreover, the classical Ash’ari heritage requires you to condition your mind in Greek philosophy before one even comes to conclusion that there is a God.
Ibn Khuzayma makes a remark in his Kitab al-Tawheed, merely in passing, that Kalimatullah is uncreated because the Prophet SAW sought refuge in them, and seeking refuge from creation is not from the Deen of Muslims. Lo and behold, seeking refuge in the Prophet is no longer Shirk according to you guys (do correct me if I am wrong).

Where is the proof for majority of Shirk mentioned in Quran is to do with graves?

I assure you I have read the entire Quran number of times and had fortune of reading Tafasir and I have not read any Tafsir stating this golden nugget. Could you guide me to the expert Mufassir who let this nugget out of the bag of goodies.

Majority of the Shirk mentioned in the Quran is to do with the graves, i.e. glorification of righteous people leading to idol worshiping.
The Prophet SAW explicitly mentioned graves and forbade us from taking them as Masajid, citing the Yahud and Nasara as an example. The Quran is crammed full of it.

—

The way that you’re using the Ayat and Ahadith is not really different from the way the Khawarij used the Ayat regarding al-Hukm (ruling) in the time of the Sahabat al-kiram: They took the Ayat out of their original context and completely misapplied them and ended up making Takfir of excellent Muslims (like their Takfir against Sayyidina ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, karramallahu wajhahu).

That’s why our noble Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam –described them with the statement “they will read the Qur`an, but it will not go beyond their throats” (and this has been reported in many authentic narrations).

It’s quite scary how the first the thing you can think of when you hear the word “Shirk” are actually Muslims and not real polytheists.

The classical theological literature is only representative of theological polemics relevant to the age of the author. None of these classical works will have much on Shirk in Allah’s Hukm, secularism, etc, or creation of Adam.

—

Well secularism did not really exist back then and no one doubted that Sayyidina Adam – ‘alayhil salam – was created without parents and that all humans are his descendants.But performing Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah with the best of creation – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – has always been a common action among this Ummah, the laymen of them and the scholars (because it’s not wrong).* The first person who tried to turn it into a huge issue wasIbn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) (and this issue is among his abnormal views) and no one agreed with him except some of his own students (and this should tell you much!).

** That’s why a group of crazy Najdis later on claimed that the majority of Muslims have been upon “Shirk akbar” since the time of IT.

Moreover, the classical Ash’ari heritage requires you to condition your mind in Greek philosophy before one even comes to conclusion that there is a God.

—

Whenever you say something regarding Ash’aris it’s either only half true or completly wrong just like your above claim.What the Asha’irah said is that Taqlid in ‘Aqidah is not allowed and that it’s obligatory upon everyone to know and understand the proofs for the correctness of the religion [of Islam] (and knowing the proof for the existance of God is included in that).

General knowledge is sufficient for the laymen (which means that complex Kalami arguments/discussions are not needed), but if one has doubts regarding an issue then it becomes obligatory upon one to acquire more detailed knowledge until one clears ones Shubhah.
(By the way: Don’t you think that this issue is completely off-topic?)

Lo and behold, seeking refuge in the Prophet is no longer Shirk according to you guys (do correct me if I am wrong).

—

May I remind you that your claims are not Musallamat.

There are two types of aid/help:1) The aid that is by the way of creating (Khalq) and bringing forth (Ijad).
2) The aid that is by the way of being an intermediary mean (Sabab) and by the way of acquisition (Kasb).

The first type can be asked only from Allah ta’ala, while the second type can be asked from the creation.

The belief behind this is the following: No one has influence (Ta`thir) upon the creation except Allah ta’ala, this means that real help can only be expected from Allah ta’ala without any partners. As for seeking aid with the creation, then this can only be done metaphorically.

Let me give an example: If I get ill and go to a doctor, then I’m not expecting that he himself will be able to heal me, but rather that he’s a mean (Sabab) from among the means to get healed by Allah ta’ala. The same reasoning applies if I take medicine.Now take this reasoning and apply it to the one seeking aid/intercession with the Master of the first and the last, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: He’s mentioning the name of Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – not because he believes that the real help comes from him, but rather because he wants help from Allah ta’ala by the Barakah (blessing) of Rasulullah. How is this Shirk?

Where is the proof for majority of Shirk mentioned in Quran is to do with graves? I assure you I have read the entire Quran number of times and had fortune of reading Tafasir and I have not read any Tafsir stating this golden nugget. Could you guide me to the expert Mufassir who let this nugget out of the bag of goodies.

Considering what is meant by Shirk of graves is not dancing on them, but praying to the dead, and considering the Quran is crammed full of references to those who pray to other than Allah and how it is futile, it is pretty clear to any reader most of the Shirk censured in the Quran is of this category.

@Abu Sulayman throwing the ‘khariji’ label around is a very lazy way of closing a debate. Putting the labels to the side and discussing issues objectively would be more helpful.
RE Tawassul/Istighatha/Tashaffu’ which you are referring to by citing the aforementioned scholars, I don’t have a major issue with it, and nor does Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn Abd al-Wahhab for that matter, because none of it involves praying to other than god.What is Shirk, however, is praying to other than God, call it what you want, and not matter what your belief may be when doing so. If a person prays to Krishna saying, ‘Lord Krishna, grant us rain’, he is a Mushrik, even if he says it metaphorically, believing that only Allah is responsible for bringing it about and Krishna is only a means.

“Know, that it is permissable and good to perform Tawassul, Istighathah (seeking aid) and Tashaffu’ (seeking intercession) through the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – unto his Lord subhanahu wa ta’ala. The permissibility and desirability of this is from the matters that are well known among all those who have religion, and well known from the actions of the Prophets and Messengers, and the way of the righteous Salaf, the scholars, and the layman among the Muslims.
No one has denied this from the people of religion, nor has anyone heard about [denying] this in any time until Ibn Taymiyyah came: So he spoke regarding this with words that deceive the weak inexperienced ones and he innovated that which no one from the eras before held.
This is the reason why he attacked the story which has been already mentioned from [Imam] Malik – may Allah have mercy upon him – for it contains the statement of [Imam] Malik to al-Mansur: “Seek intercession through him”. And we’ve already made its health/correctness clear.
And this is why we’ve also mentioned Istighathah in this book, because of the attack against it together with [the attack against] the visiting [of the grave of the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam -] and it should be enough for you [to know] that the denunciation of Ibn Taymiyyah against [performing] Istighathah and Tawassul is a statement that no scholar before him had said and he created dissent among the people of Islam by it.”
– end of the qoute –

“I say: Tawassul through the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is permissible in every situation, [both] before his creation and after it, in the time of his life in this world, as well as after his death in the period of the Barzakh, and after the resurrection on the day of reckoning and paradise and it’s of three types.”
– end of the qoute –

“The first type [of Tawassul]: That a person performs Tawassul through him, meaning that the one that seeks the fulfillment of his need asks Allah ta’ala by him or by his rank or his blessings. This is permissible in all three situations and regarding all of them there are authentic reports.”
– end of the qoute –

On p. 372:

النوع الثاني : التوسل به ، بمعنى طلب الدعاء منه ، وذلك في أحوال

“The second type [of Tawassul]: Performing Tawassul throuh him, meaning that one asks him (the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) for supplication (Du’a`) and it’s in the [following] situations.”
– end of the qoute –

“Now if the opponent says: I’m not disallowing Tawassul and Tashaffu’ (seeking intercession) because of the reports and proofs that you’ve mentioned, but rather I disallow the usage of Tajawwuh and Istighathah, because they create the impression that the one by whom aid is sought is higher than the One whose aid is sought [in reality].We say [to him]: No Muslim believes this nor does the expression of Tajawwuh and Istighathah indicate this.
That is because Tajawwuh comes from [the word] Jah and Wajahahand its meaning is high worth and status. Tawassul could be sought from a possessor of rank (Jah) unto one who possesses a higher rank than him.Istighathah is seeking aid, and the one who is seeking aid is asking from one by whom aid is sought in order to obtain aid from other than him, even if that other is greater than him. So Tawassul, Tashaffu’, Tajawwuh and Istighathah with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – and the rest of the Prophets (Anbiya`) and righteous people (Salihin) has no meaning in the heart of the Muslims other than this and no one from them intends by [performing] these other than this [meaning].
So whoever’s breast is not opened with this, then let him cry over himself. We ask Allah for well-being.”
– end of the qoute –

“It is reported from Malik al-Dar that he said: “The people suffered a drought during the successorship of ‘Umar bin al-Khattab – radhiallahu ‘anhu -, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask [Allah] for rain for your community (Ummah), for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to ‘Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. And say to him: You must be clever, you must be clever!”
So the man came to ‘Umar and informed him, after which ‘Umar cried and then said: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!””

And the point in mentioning this narration as a proof is: His asking for supplication for rain (Istisqa`) from the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – after his death in the period of the Barzakh. There is nothing wrong with [doing] this, because the supplication (Du’a`) of the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – to his Lord, may He be Exalted, in this situation is not impossible – and narrations have been reported regarding that which we’ve mentioned [here] and we mention a part of it – and his knowledge – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – regarding the question of the one asking him has also been reported.

With these two matters [being established], then there is nothing wrong with asking the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – to supplicate for rain just as he was asked [for this in his lifetime] in this world (Dunya).”
– end of the qoute –

“The third type of Tawassul: That one requests the wanted thing from him (the Prophet), with the meaning that he – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is able to be an intermediary mean in this by asking his Lord and by his intercession unto Him. So it goes back to the second type [of Tawassul] (and that is to ask for supplication) in meaning, even if the expression [used] is different.
And from this is the statement of the one who said to the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – (as reported in “Sahih Muslim”): “I ask you for your companionship in paradise”. He responded: “Then help me to achieve this for you by devoting yourself often to prostration”.There are also many reports regarding this and the people do not intend by their asking this except the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – to be an intermediary mean (Sabab) and intercessor (Shafi’) [in attaining the requested matter].
Likewise the response of the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – even if it was reported in the manner of a request, as we have been reported in “Dala`il al-Nubuwwah” by [Imam] al-Bayhaqi with a chain of transmission (Isnad) going back to ‘Uthman bin Abi al-‘As – radhiallahu ‘anhu – [in which] he said: “I complained to the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – regarding my weakness in memorizing the Qur`an, so he said [to me]: “A devil who is called Khinzab [is responsible for this], come closer to me o ‘Uthman”. Then he put his hand on my chest, so that I felt its coldness between my shoulder blades and he said: “Get out, o devil, of the chest of ‘Uthman””. He (‘Uthman) said: “I did not hear after this anything except that I memorized it.”
So look at the command of the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – to the devil to get out, with the knowledge that this is [only possible] with the permission of Allah ta’ala and with Him creating and facilitating it. The intent isn’t to ascribe the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – [the ability of] creating (Khalq) and independence in actions (Istiqlal bil Af’al). No Muslim intends such a thing.
So taking the words to this [meaning] and disallowing it [based upon this] is from the deception regarding the religion and from the causing of confusion for the monotheist laymen.”
– end of the qoute –

“If these [three] types [of Tawassul] and the [different] situations regarding the one who asks the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – [for aid] has become clear and the meaning has become apparent, then it should not concern you how one calls it: whether it’s Tawassul,Tashaffu’, Istighathah, Tajawwuh or Tawajjuh, because the [intended] meaning of all of these [different wordings used] is the same.”
– end of the qoute –

“So Allah ta’ala is the one whose aid is sought and aid comes Him from by the way of creating and bringing forth. And the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is one whose aid is sought and aid comes from him by the way of being an intermediary mean and [by the way] of acquisition.”
– end of the qoute –

“So the permissibility of using both Istighathah and Tawassul has become clear and this is a matter which can not be doubted, because Istighathah means seeking aid in the language and this is permissable in the language and in the Shari’ah from whomever is able to do it and by whatever phrase one expresses it, just like when the mother of Isma’il (peace be upon them) said: “Help us if you can offer any help.“”
– end of the qoute –

1) I am not a Talib alIlm so please cut it out.
2) I have read this before, so I am very well aware of it.
3) What you have quoted proves my points, because:
alSubki mentions:

First type of Tawassul which is to ask Allah directly by the Prophet SAW, which no one says is ShirkSecond type of Tawassul which is to ask the Prophet to ask Allah, which some say its Shirk others say it isn’t. It is disputed whether Ibn Taymiyya himself classed it as Shirk or not.Third type of Tawassul where a person asks the Prophet for what he wants, intending thereby, that the Prophet SAW will make dua to Allah for it, which is why alSubki says, this type is like the second type.
This has nothing to do with the Shirk of graves we’re talking about,that is to pray to the dead to fulfil one’s needs, because those who do that do not think for one second the deceased is going to make dua to Allah on their behalf. Rather, as works of Quburis testify, they expect the deceased to have the ability granted to them by Allah, of course to bring about cause and effect. alSubki has nothing to do with this Shirk.alSubki’s and your contention that those who make such prayers only do it believing that the deceased will make du’a is baseless assumption.

There is nothing in Quran about grave worship. Praise of righteous dead did not lead into idol worship. The narration of Bukhari on which you are basing your point is a fabrication and goes against clear texts of Quran.

The Hadith says, after Prophet Nuh (alayhis salaam), his Ummah worshipped the Saliheen of their Ummah. Yet the Quran is clear in stating that Prophet Nuh (alayhis salaam) was sent to eradicate the worship of those idols which the Hadith say became idols after him. In other words according to Hadith the Saliheen were worshiped after Prophet Nuh (alayhis salaam) and according to Quran his Ummah was worshipping them before his Prophethood and he was sent to warn them. That is not proof of your position. It is also worth pointing out how you are blurring the distinction between persona worship into grave worship. Quran talks about persona worship in some places, such as worship of Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam).Twisting that into grave worship. The all important point, the polytheists and the Christians believed so and so is Ilah (i.e. ma’bood) … But Khawarij accuse the Muslims of worshiping the graves even when no one takes the graves as ma’bood nor those who occupy the graves are believed to be ma’bood. The belief which makes the action Shirk is absent.

You’re backtracking and at the same time claiming that it “proves your point”.

—
May I remind you that you were claiming just some posts ago that asking for intercession from the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would be “Shirk” according to Imam Taqi alDin alSubki (d. 756 AH), while Imam al Subki firmly believes in the permissabilty of doing this (look at the second type of Tawassul) and anyone who has read the chapter properly would not doubt this even for one second!

Add to this: In a known Hadith in Sahih alBukhari (and in other Hadith books) it is reported that the people on the day of judgement will go to different Prophets peace be upon them and ask them for intercession by saying “intercede for us with your Lord” (اشفع لنا إلى ربك), but none of them will intercede except Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam , who will fall in prostration until Allah ta’ala gives him the permission to intercede.Is this “Shirk akbar”?

And according to which Shari’ah and which Mantiq?

And I’ll repeat myself: One could easily qoute scholars before Imam al Subki and after him who explicitly use expressions like “alShafa’ah, ya Rasulullah“. So please don’t try to deny things, which are established facts. Thank you.

This has nothing to do with the Shirk of graves we’re talking about, that is to pray to the dead to fulfil one’s needs, because those who do that do not think for one second the deceased is going to make dua to Allah on their behalf. Rather, as works of Quburis testify, they expect the deceased to have the ability granted to them by Allah, of course to bring about cause and effect.

—

Just because you have a bad opinion of other Muslims and think the worst of them, this will not turn into a proof in the Shari’ah in any way or form.
(What makes your comment ironic is the fact that you’ve defended the [deviant] belief of the causality of secondary causes in some of your older posts on IA.)
Muslims are usually occasionalist in their thinking (because that is the Islamic position) and believe that there is no might or power except with Allah.

Add to this: Believing that Allah ta’ala may grant Mu’jizat (miracles) and Karamat to the Anbiya` and Awliya` is the belief of the Ahl alSunnah. And the scholars have mentioned that this does not stop with their death.
This has nothing to do with attributing influence (Ta`thir) to other than Allah ta’ala.

In fact, one of the scholars attempted to enumerate these miracles, and counted one thousand; and even then, we consider him to have fallen short, for they are many multiples of that, and are, in fact, innumerable.They are not limited to only those that appeared at his hands during his life (peace and blessings of God be upon him); rather, they are continuously renewed after him (peace and blessings of God be upon him) with the turning of the ages; for the miracles (karamat) of the saints of his nation, and the answers to those who pray for the fulfilment of their needs by seeking intercession through him, and the succour which they find after seeking his intercession, by which they are delivered in the hour of their most dire need. . . all of these are unequivocal proofs of his greatness, and are to be counted as obvious miracles ascribed to him. As such, they have no limit!

And let me guess who these “Quburis” were: Scholars like Imam Ibn alHajj al’Abdari (d. 737 AH) (his book alMadkhal, which according to you contains “Shirk akbar”, has been praised by Imam Ibn Hajar al’Asqalani (d. 852 AH) in alDurar alkaminah), Imam Shihab alDin alRamli (d. 957 AH) and his son Shams alDin alRamli (d. 1004 AH) (a major scholar of the Shafi’iyyah and known as the little Shafi’i) and other accepted scholars.

1) The Quranic verses about making Dua to Allah alone are too numerous to mention. This is all about graveworshipping. As I said, the main aspect of Shirk (amongst others) in graveworship is praying to other than God, which the Quran focuses more on than any other Shirk.

—

These Ayat have actually nothing to do with Istighathah or Tashaffu’.

You’re just superimposing your

understanding upon these Ayat, but the classical scholars did not understand the Ayat like you do. (And it’s quite obvious that their understanding is completely different from yours, otherwise we wouldn’t see the leading Fuqaha` of all 4 Madhahib recommending performing Tashaffu’ during the Ziyarah.)

3) When Ibn Abbas says ‘these names were of righteous men from the people of Noah’, it doesn’t imply in any way that this happened after Noah AS died. It may have happened during his life time or even before.

Forgive me for i am just a jaahil trying to learn…If someone stood infront of the Idol Of Krishna and called out to this Idol…”Ya Krishna…grant me a child or good health or wealth…”
Do we now excuse them from Shirk/Idolotry…cos they may have made this dua to Krishna with the belief that Krishna himself is not able to do anything and only prays to Allah for this dua to be accepted?
Maybe all Hindus make dua to their Idols with the same belief that they only pray to the Idols as the Idols will pray to Allah..
so hence there is no such thing as Idolotry?

—

Brother, your questions don’t make much sense.
You don’t seem to know what the Hindus actually believe: They believe in a god who has many forms and these forms can indwell in idols according to their understanding. (And they also believe in incarnation.) They’re worshipping the idols based upon these beliefs.

All those who worship idols have weird beliefs: They either belief that these idols represent some being (like an angel for example) which they regard as divine and/or they believe that a divine being indwells in the idol and so on.

The Arab polytheists for example believed that angels are daughters of god and they believed that many gods are necassary for the preservation of the world and they had many other Shirki beliefs.

Also why would Umar (r.a) ask Al Abbas to make dua for rain…in person…and not go directly to the grave of Rasoolallah (saw) and make dua the way As Subki has encouraged or allowed? Surely nobody could come close to the status of the Prophet (saw)?

—

The translation that I qouted is more accurate, because in the Arabic wording it does not say “inna kunna nastasqi bi Nabiyyina” rather it says “inna kunna natawassalu ilayka bi Nabiyyina“, so translating it as “we would use our Prophet as a means to You” is nearer to the Arabic wording [of the narration that is found in Sahih alBukhari] than “we would request our Prophet to ask You for rain“. (But the other wording can be found in a different version of the narration in other Hadith books.)

As for translating “inna kunna” as “we would” or “we used to“, then I don’t see where exactly the difference between the two is, and what is important here is the Arabic wording anyways.

So what we understand is that in the past the Sahabah would make Tawassul with the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in order to get rain, while in the above incident they made Tawassul with al’Abbas, radhiallahu ‘anhu.

Does that mean that since the death of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam no one had taken him as means to his Lord or seeked blessings through him?

What about the time of the Khilafah of Abu Bakr alSiddiq, radhiallahu ‘anhu?

Was there never a drought in his time?

If it said “then why did ‘Umar not make Tawassul with the Prophet in the above incident?… this shows that it’s prohibited to do so…”, then the reply is: This is not an argument at all, because from a Fiqhi point of view not doing something does not show it’s prohibition (الترك لا يفيد التحريم).

Imam Taqi alDin alSubki (d. 756 AH) mentioned (see “Shifa`alSaqam” p. 377) that in the Tawassul of ‘Umar through al’Abbas may Allah be pleased with them there is no denunciation [whatsoever] against performing Tawassul through the Prophet sallallahu ‘alahi wa sallam or his grave. Thereafter he mentioned the following narration:

“The people of Medina were in the grip of a severe famine. They complained to ‘Ā’ishah (about their terrible condition). She told them to go towards the Prophet’s grave and open a window in the direction of the sky so that there is no curtain between the sky and the grave.
[The narrator (Abū alJawzā’ Aws bin ‘Abdullāh)] says they did so. Then it started raining heavily; even the lush green grass sprang up (everywhere) and the camels had grown so fat (it seemed) they would burst out due to the over piling of blubber. So the year was named as the year of greenery and plenty.”
Source: “Sunan alDarimi” and translation taken from here:Tawassul(Waseela)

And this incident shows how Allah ta’ala honoured his Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam even after his death (and this is how Imam alDarimi (d. 255 AH) called the chapter).

It should be also noted that ‘Uthman bin Hunayf radhiallahu ‘anhu teached to a man in need to perform Tawassul with the Master of the first and last sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam and that was in the time of the Khilafah of ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan, radhiallahu ‘anhu.

And in the narration of Malik alDar a man (it was mentioned that it was the companion Bilal bin alHarith, radhiallahu ‘anhu) went to the grave of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and asked him to supplicate for rain for his Ummah. After he had a dream he went to Sayyidina ‘Umar radhiallahu ‘anhu and told him what had happened.

Why did he not say to him that he had committed “Shirk akbar”?

And this means: You have not a single narration where anyone from Sahabah denounced Tawassul, while we have narrations where Sahabah did take Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as a means to their Lord and seeked blessings through him. And for centuries none said anything against Tawassul and it got mentioned in the books without any objection whatsoever.

Let’s come back to the Tawassul through al’Abbas, radhiallahu ‘anhu:

And now think about this here: Who is greater in rank, ‘Umar or al’Abbas?

‘Umar, because we know that the best of this Ummah after our Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is Abu Bakr alSiddiq, then ‘Umar alFaruq, then ‘Uthman Dhul Nurayn and then ‘Ali alMurtadha may Allah ta’ala be pleased with them all as it was mentioned by Imam Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH) in his “Lum’at alI’tiqad”.

So why did they make Tawassul through al’Abbas?

The obvious answer: Because he’s the uncle of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and that’s why ‘Umar did not simply say “now we take al’Abbas as a means to you“, rather he said “now we take our Prophet’s uncle as a means to you“!
So Tawassul through al’Abbas goes in reality back to performing Tawassul through the Prophet!
And that’s why when al’Abbas supplicated he said “The people have turned to You by means of me because of my position in relation to your Prophet”. So again the matter clearly goes back to the rank of Rasulullah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

And the benefit from these narrations is what Imam Ibn Hajar al‘Asqalani (d. 852 AH) said:

“The benefit from this story regarding al’Abbas is that it’s desirable to seek intercession (Istishfa’) through righteous people and the Prophet’s family (Ahl alBayt), and in it is the merit of al’Abbas and [also] the merit of ‘Umar due to his humbleness before al’Abbas and his recognition of his [due] right.”

* And we do not know a single scholar prior to Ibn Taymiyyah(d. 728 AH) who understood from the Tawassul through al’Abbas that Tawassul through the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is prohibited.
So this was simply an abnormal (shadh) view. How is it now justified to take this view and try to force it upon the Ummah of Islam and make Takfir based upon it? What is this other innovation and misguidance?

Add to this: Saying that Tawassul through the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is prohibited while it’s allowed with other than him, is a dangerous statement and not really respectful towards the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ,because it’s as if one is trying to deny his high rank and status with his Lord.
(Imam Taqi alDin alHisni (d. 829 AH) even said in his “Daf’ Shubah man shabbaha wa tamarrad” that this claim by Ibn Taymiyyah is disbelief.)

How could it be prohibited to take the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as a Wasilah (means) to our Lord while Sayyidina Adam ‘alayhi salam performed Tawassul with our Prophet before he was even born?! (If anyone wants to doubt the authenticity of the narration, then let him read this here: “The Hadith Of Adam’s tawassul through the Prophet“)

And how could it be prohibited to take the Master of the first and last, the one who will intercede and whose intercession will be accepted, the one who has been sent as a mercy to mankind, the one whom the station of praise and glory has been given, as a means to one’s Lord!?

(What makes this claim even worse is to allow it with other than him!)

In a narration in “Sahih alBukhari” it is mentioned that the people on the day of judgement will go to different Prophets and ask them for intercession by saying “intercede for us to your Lord” (اشفع لنا إلى ربك), but none of them will intercede. At the end they will go to our Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and ask him for intercession, then he will fall in prostration until he’ll be given the permission to intercede.

So know and understand regarding whom you’re talking and don’t try to deny his rank and status.

Unfortunately, I know the answer to this question. When AlAllamah alMu’alammi رحمه الله asked one of Abu Sulayman’s salaf this question; he answered by saying, “Then they are not committing shirk.”

—

My Salaf are the classical and accepted scholars of this Ummah and NOT people whom you try to turn into “my Salaf” even though I don’t even know them.
While your Salaf are people who came more than 1200 years after the Hijrah and the first thing they did was to mass-slaughter the people of the Arabian peninsula and even proudly report it in their own books (‘Unwan alMajd by Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH).

1- ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi’s shocking interpretation of a weak / fabricated Hadith included in his book whereby heattributes shirk to Adam and Eve!

Quote:

Kitab At-Tawhid, Chapter: 48:

( “Allah , says: “It is He Who created you from a single being and made from it its mate, in order that he might dwell with her. When he united with her [in intercourse], she bore [i.e. becomes pregnant with] a light burden and she continued to carry it. When she grew heavy, they both prayed to Allah, their Lord: “If You give us a righteous child, good in every respect, we vow we shall be of the grateful ones.” But when He gave them a righteous child, they ascribed to others a share in that which He had given them: But Allah is Exalted High above the partners they ascribe to Him” (Qur’an 7:189-190 )

Allah , Most Glorified, Most High, informs us in these verses that He created mankind from a single human being, Adam (as ) and that He created from him a wife, Hawwa`, in order that they might live together in peace and harmony and that He created in them the desire for sexual intercourse and made it permissible to them, in order that they might enjoy complete stability and repose and that their progeny might continue to multiply. And when she became pregnant, they both called upon Allah , asking Him to give them a healthy, strong, righteous child and swearing that if He did so, they would be eternally be grateful to Him. But when Allah answered their supplications and gave them that which they had requested, they named him `Abdul Harith, thus ascribing others as partners with Allah ; and Allah is far above that which they attributed to Him.” )

This narration about Adam and Eve is a weak narration, and many Huffaz have stated that this story is, in fact, a fabrication.

For example:

– Imam Ibn Kathir said in his tafsir (Arabic version 2/287) :
“These narrations were obtained / received from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) “.
(هذه الآثار متلقاة عن أهل الكتاب)

– Ibn Hazm said in Al-Fisal :

“the story that is attributed to Adam which states that when Allah answered his supplications and gave him that which he had requested and he named his son “Abdul Harith”, this story is a superstitious fabricated lie and does not have a correct sanad. The verse was revealed for the Mushriks and taken upon its apparent meaning”.
(وهذا الذي نسبوه إلى آدم من أنه سمى ابنه عبد الحارث خرافة موضوعة مكذوبة… ولم يصح سندها قط، وإنما نزلت الآية في المشركين على ظاهرها)

– Imam Al Qurtubi said (سورة الأعراف -آية190) :
“this story cannot be relied upon by those with a heart”

(لا يعوِّل عليها من كان له قلب)

And finally,Wahhabiyyah “Salafis” themselves have admitted that the narration is Fabricated according to their Sheikh Al-Uthaimin:

Quote:
—

Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen said: And this story is false from number of angles:

1] That there is no authentic narration concerning that from Prophet Muhammed [sallallahu alaihi wasallam] – and it is from the kind of information that cannot be obtained except by revelation and Ibn Hazm said concerning this story, “Indeed it is a report that is superstitious lie.”

2] If this story was concerning Adam and Eve, then they either made repentance from the Shirk or died upon it, so whoever makes it permissible to hold that a single one of the Prophets died upon shirk than that is something severely wrong. And if they repented from Shirk, then it does not befit the wisdom, justice and mercy of Allah, that He mentions their mistakes and not their repentance from it. When Allah, the Most High, mentions the mistakes of some of the Prophets and Messengers, He mentions their repentance from it, as in the story of Adam and his wife, when he ate from the tree and they repented from it.

3]That the Prophets are protected from shirk by the agreement of Scholars.

4] That it is confirmed in the hadith of intercession, that the people will come to Adam and seek intercession from him, then he will excuse himself, due to eating from the tree and that is a sin, and if shirk had occurred from him, it would have been stronger excuse.

5] That in this story it is mentioned that Shaytan came to them and said: ‘I am your companion who got you out of paradise’, so if he said that, they would have known with certainty that he was an enemy to them and would not accept anything from him.

6] That in this story is his saying: ‘I will cause it to have horns that will puncture her belly….’, if he believed that it is possible he could actually do that, then this is shirk in Lordship because none but Allah is able to do that. And if he didn’t believe it was possible, then it is not possible to accept his saying.

7] The saying of Allah, the Most High: ‘Exalted be Allah above what they associate with Him’ [7:190] The pronoun is plural and if it was concerning Adam and Eve, it would have been in the dual form… But what is correct is that Al-Hasan [rahimahullah] said: ‘Indeed those intended in this verse are not Adam and Eve’, and what is meant is the polytheists from the children of Adam (descendants), as was mentioned by Ibn Kathir in his tafisr. [See Al Qawl al Mufeed, 2/156-157]

Source: salafimanahj.com

—

Leaving aside the shocking interpretation of the fabricated hadith by ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi (which really has no excuse) one is left perplexed as to why ‘salafis’ protest the inclusion of weak hadith in books encouraging good behaviour when their own aqida books contain such narrations by their own admission?

Some Examples of Hadith Graded Weak

by Sheikh Al-Albani

Found in Salafi Aqida Gospel – Kitab Al-Tawhid

The Prophet’s Prayer Described of ‘Shaykh’ al-Albani,

” … this is because I hold that the authentic ahadith are sufficient, leaving no need for anything weak, for the latter does not amount to anything except dhann (conjecture, suspicion), and incorrect conjecture at that; as the Exalted says, ‘ … and conjecture is of no use against the truth.’ “

We can see from these condition the following; The first principle lays out the obligation to make known the weak ahadith from the authentic, even in fada’il al-a’mal. Something which many people who follow this opinion do not do, not only that but many of the scholars who follow this opinion today are not even capable of discerning whether the hadith they are quoting contains the types of weaknesses indicated above! Source: Sunnahonline.com

Forget fada’il al-a’mal, what follows are some examples of Hadithconsidered weak by ‘Shaykh’ Al-Albani found in the Salafi ‘Aqida Text of Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi’s –Kitab Al-Tawhid:

He cites in Chapter 1: The Virtue of At-Tawhid and what Sins it Expiates

Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated that Allah’s Messenger said,

“Musa (Moses) said: ‘O my Lord, teach me something by which I can remember You and supplicate to You…..”

Al-Albani listed it as Da’eef (weak) in Al-Targhib wa’l Tarhib (923).

—————————————

He cites in Chapter 5 (English Version E.V.):

The hadith of Imran Ibn Husain (ra), that Allah’s Messenger saw a man with a brass ring in his hand, and he asked him: “What is this?” He replied: “It is for protection from al-waahinah.” The Prophet answered:
“Remove it at once, for verily, it will not increase you except in weakness, and were you to die whilst wearing it, you would never be successful.”

The hadeeth of Ibn `Abbas (ra) that he said: “Allah’s Messenger said:
“Cursed those women who visit the graves and those who take them as places of worship and hang lights around them.”

Al-Albani lists it as Da’eef (weak) in Al-Jamee’ (4691)

————————————-

He cited in (Chapter 23- E.V.) :

The hadeeth of Qutun Ibn Qabeesah informed us from his father that he heard the Prophet say: “Verily, al-‘iyaafah, at-tarq and at-tiyarah are all acts of sorcery.

Al-Albani lists it as Da’eef (weak) in Al-Targhib wa’l Tarhib (1794).

————————————–

He listed in (Chapter 23- E.V.) :

The hadeeth of Abu Hurairah (ra) where he said:

“Whoever tied a knot and blew on it has committed an act of sorcery, and whoever commits an act of sorcery has committed an act of Shirk, and whoever wore an amulet will be left to its control.”

Al-Albani lists it as Da’eef (weak) in Al-Targhib wa’l Tarhib (1788).

—————————————-

He listed in ( Chapter 26- E.V.) :

The hadeeth of `Uqbah Ibn `Amir (ra), that he said: “At-tiyarah was mentioned before the Messenger of Allah and he said: “The best form of it is al-f`al, for it does not prevent a Muslim (from achieving his objective). Whenever any of you sees something he dislikes, he should say: “Oh, Allah ! None but You Brings good things. None but You can prevent evil things. There is no power and no strength except in You.”

Al-Albani lists it as Da’if (weak) Sunan Abu Dawud (843).

—————————————

He listed in ( Chapter 30- E.V.) :

The hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri (ra), in a marfoo’ form that he said: “It is from a lack of certainty (of faith) that a person pleases people and by so doing, invokes Allah’s Anger, and that he praises them for the livelihood which Allah has given him and that he blames them for the things not bestowed by Allah . Not even the avarice of the greediest of people can bring Allah’s Blessings, nor can the aversion of the one who hates it prevent it.”

Al-Albani put it in his Silsila Da’ifa (1482) and said : “It is mawdu’” (fabricated).

—————————————

He listed in ( Chapter 62- E.V.) :

The hadeeth of Jubair Ibn Mut’im (ra) that he said: “A bedouin Arab came to the Prophet and said: “Oh, Messenger of Allah! The people are enfeebled, families are starving and wealth has perished, so ask your Rabb to send us some rain and we will seek Allah’s intercession upon you and yours upon Allah.”

The Prophet said: “Subhaan Allaah! Subhaan Allaah!” 1 He continued to do so until the effect of it was apparent in the faces of his Companions. Then he said: “Woe to you! Do you not know Who Allah is? Allah’s Sublimity is far greater than that! There is no intercession of Allah upon anyone.”

Al-Albani said about this hadith: “It is weak”, in : Takhrij Al-Meshkat (5727)